woodguru

The t***h...the right doesn't care about any reality concerning what qualifies a judge for the supreme court...

More important is disqualifiers...the judge's record in past cases, does the judge stick exactly to the law and precedence, or are they prone to making their own decisions up according to their personal beliefs and political ideology.

Does the judge show a strict adherence to the law and precedence regardless of their personal religious and political beliefs? Judges on lower courts can and are overturned by higher courts who are supposed to use the laws and precedents to guide their decisions. The supreme court is the last word, there is no appeal to their decisions, and the decisions they make are then help up for lower courts who are supposed to consider these decisions to be their last word. When a judge such as Kavanaugh has repeatedly shown that he is capable of and has made decisions that deviate from the law and have been in fact overturned by appeals courts because he didn't uphold the laws, they have no business being on the supreme court where their bad decisions become law.

Brett's character during high school and college, sure it's no big thing if a person is a bit wild in terms of not being a model student. The supreme court actually demands people who have always exhibited close to perfect honor and integrity. Thomas got by by a v**e or two with a 2/3rds majority being needed, and he has not been a good judge at all, and continued to be controversial in terms of conflicts of interest and siding with partisan positions. His difficulty being confirmed actually was an indicator of his lack of being fit for the supreme court.

What is it with this nominee, why isn't it okay just to say okay, he is not perfect, he is not okay for the supreme court, he is too partisan and always has been? Pick another that has more centrist and much better record of fair and impartial decisions.

JimMe

The Lib Justices on the Supreme Court v**e like the Lib House and Senate Representatives in Congress v**e: One-For-All-And-All-For-One... Everyone - be we Lib, Conservative, or Moderate openly acknowledge this online every day...

It is the GOP Representatives who, at critical v**es, side with the Libs... ACA-ObamaCare are 2 examples - Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court, and Sen McCain in the Senate...

archie bunker Loc: Texas

So, you want a perfect person for the court. Ummm.....okay.......
What IS your definition of PERFECT?

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

You live in a perfect would I sure don't. How about they v**e can you live with that?

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

woodguru

It scores as a centrist judge, centrist as defined by a record showing an adherence to the law and precedence regardless of religious or political views.

Merrick Garland was a republican, and had a history that showed a slight lean toward conservative rulings. He was considered a fair judge that did not bring his religious or party beliefs to his court rulings. Hard liberals objected to Garland, thought he was too conservative, I'll take a bench full of that kind of conservative.

Kavanaugh makes Gorsuch, who is a far more right leaning judge than Garland, look like a liberal. He could be expected to bring his religious and political positions to the bench to a higher degree than Scalise did, we would get many hard right opinions written by him that have nothing to do with the constitution.

woodguru

Both Kagen and Sotomayer are centrists, and had a long history of decisions that stuck to the law and precedents. Kav has no such regard for the law and could be expected to dance to his own beliefs, religious and political.

Roberts wasn't a t*****r to conservatives, he simply went with what he thought the constitution is saying. The supreme court is not the place for "sides", it is the place for ignoring personal religious and political beliefs and going only by the constitution. The Scalise 5/4 court was responsible for some truly hideous rulings based on religious beliefs and partisan positions.

If a judge is biased enough against a******n that they know they will overturn Roe v Wade they are far too biased for the supreme court. If they are biased enough they blocked an a******n for a 17 year old rape victim they are way too biased for the supreme court.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Where in the Constitution does it say that a mother has the right to murder her child?

boofhead

It doesn't and neither does the Roe Vs Wade precedent. Nobody reads the court's statement but everybody goes with the popular definition of what it means and everybody gets it wrong.

It was found that some states proscribed a******n for any reason while others had no rules at all. The Roe decision was meant to apply the same laws across the nation. It did not suddenly make a******n legal or suddenly say that murder was legal. It is probably correct to say that any law justifying murder (including a******n) would fail if tested against the Constitution.

But taking it as precedent it says that only in the first trimester is a******n subject to medical decision by the woman's doctor. It is not something the mother can decide. She can request, and usually find a doctor to go along, but she herself has no right to k**l her baby based on anything other than a medical decision. An a******n for convenience, or as a form of birth control, is murder and illegal even under Roe.

A******ns in the later trimesters were never intended under Roe for any reason except the health of the mother or the baby and was not meant to allow unrestricted a******ns, nor was it meant to prevent any State from making a******n illegal in the second or third trimester if that State chose to do so.

The unrestricted murder of babies that has resulted (over a million a year!) is a travesty of the law. No matter what the Democrats tell you it is still murder.